alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stefani LANDRETH; Michelle C. Childers; Candy Watts, all individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. RURAL HOME HEALTH, INC., a corporation; Jon Coffey, individually, Defendant. Frontier Insurance Company, a subsidiary of Frontier Insurance Group, Inc., Garnishee-Appellee.

No. 00-7081.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

April 4, 2001.

Before HENRY, BRISCOE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unani- *676■ mously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. *See*Fed.R.App.P. 34(f); 10th Cir.R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiffs are former employees of Rural Home Health, Inc. (RHH) who obtained a consent judgment against RHH and its owner, Jon Coffey, on their claims that Coffey harassed them in various ways, both during work hours and during non-work hours. They claimed that insurance policies issued by Frontier Insurance Co. to RHH covered their losses. The district court1 determined that the insurance policies did not provide coverage to plaintiffs and entered summary judgment in Frontier’s favor. Plaintiffs appeal. Our jurisdiction arises from 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

On appeal, plaintiffs challenge the conclusion that the insurance policies do not cover their damages caused by Coffey. Although they concede that the policies exclude harassment that occurred while they were at work, they maintain that when they left work for the day, the policy exclusions did not apply. They also argue that one of the policies covered RHH’s negligent supervision and training of Coffey.

We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. *McKnight v. Kimberly Clark Corp.,*149 F.3d 1125, 1128 (10th Cir.1998). Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,*477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, as well as the briefs submitted by the parties and the applicable law. Applying the standards set out above, we affirm the judgment for substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s June 14, 2000 order.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. *676The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir.R. 36.3.

1

. The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *See*Appellants’ App. at 3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND CASH FLOWS AND
ACCOMPANYING NOTES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,568
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  165,572
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,552
<INVENTORY>                                    269,622
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               498,830
<PP&E>                                         362,453
<DEPRECIATION>                                 143,214
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 842,982
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          316,697
<BONDS>                                        178,769
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,184
<OTHER-SE>                                     293,064
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   842,982
<SALES>                                      1,296,399
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,296,399
<CGS>                                        1,195,168
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,195,168
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   183
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,949
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,341
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,802
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,539
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,539
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.36
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 3 

 IRC HanProposed USSGL Accounts for Uninvested Funds Interest Receivable/Payable (To Be Effective Fiscal Year 20Account Title: Interest Receivable on Uninvested FundsAccount Number: 134900Normal Balance: Debit Definition: This account is used to record the amount of accrued interest receivable on Uninvested Funds with Treasu

close at year-end. Justification: Interest receivable on uninvested funds (further described in TFM Volume I, Part 2, Chapter 4600) cuUSSGL 134000 “Interest Receivable - Not Otherwise Classified.” However, the portion of interest receivable odistinguished from other types of federal interest receivable and federal receivables. Interest receivable on uninveste

to Interest Receivable, Loans (Line 4.1 of the Balance Sheet) within the Loans Receivable, Net line on the Balance Sfederal receivables crosswalk elsewhere. Account Title: Accrued Interest Payable on Uninvested Funds

Account Number: 214900 Normal Balance: Credit 

Definition: This account is used to record the amount of interest accrued and owed to Treasury for borrowings of uninvdoes not close at year-end. Justification: Accrued interest payable on uninvested funds (further described in TFM Volume I, Part 2, Chapter 4within USSGL 214000 “Accrued Interest Payable - Not Otherwise Classified.” However, the portion of interest payneeds distinguished from other types of federal accrued interest payable and federal payables. Accrued interest payshould crosswalk to Interest Payable, Loans (Line 24.1 of the Balance Sheet) within the Debt line on the Balance Sfederal receivables crosswalk to separate payable lines. 
Page 2 of 3 

 IRC HanAttribute Table (Effective Fiscal Year 2023) 

USSGL USSGL Account Title Anticipated Budg/ 

Prop

Norm 

Bal

Begin 

/End

Debit/ 

Credit

Auth 

Type Code

134900 Interest Receivable on Uninvested Funds N P D B/E/C D/C 214900 Accrued Interest Payable on Uninvested Funds N P C B/E D/C Avail 

Time

BEA Cat Borrow 

Source

BudgetaryImpact Indicator

Cohort 

Yr

Cust/ 

Noncust

Exch/ 

Nonexch

Fed/ 

Non Fed

Trading 

Ptnr

Trading Ptnr Main

 A/S F ### /#### 

 F ### /#### 

Program 

Rpt Cat

Reimb 

Flag

Year

of 

BA

Reduction 

Type Fund Type

Reporting 

Type Code

Fin

A

CF/DF/EC/EG/EM/EP/ER/ES/ET/TR/UG/US/UT E/F/U DCF/DF/EC/EG/EM/EP/ER/ES/ET/TR/UG/US/UT E/F/U D
Page 3 of 3 

 IRC HanImpact on Financial Statement Crosswalks (FY 2023): 

USSGL 

Account

Balance 

Sheet

Net 

Cost

Net 

Position

Custodial 

Activity

Reclassified 

Balance Sheet 

Reclassified 

Net Cost 

Reclassified 

Net 

Position 

SF

 134900 Line 4.1 N/A N/A Lines 7 & 9 Line 4.1 N/A N/A N 214900 Line 24.1 N/A N/A N/A Line 24.1 N/A N/A N

Impacts to Transaction Codes (FY 2023): 

 Transaction Code

B112 B418 C402 C416 C420 C422 

Impacts to the following Edits/Validations (FY 2023): 

Edit Rule Number Rule Name

22 Beginning Proprietary Account Balance 23 Ending Proprietary Account Balance
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

: CRIMINAL ACTION 

v. : 

: NO. 05-295-2

ANDRE COLEMAN : 

______________________________________________________________________________

ANDRE COLEMAN :

: CIVIL ACTION 

v. : 

: NO. 10-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : 

ORDER

AND NOW, this 11th day of April , 2012, upon consideration of

Petitioner’s Motion To Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence By A Person In Federal Custody

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 141, No. 05-295-2), it is ORDERED that the Motion is

DENIED. No certificate of appealability shall issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

_________________________ 

R. BARCLAY SURRICK, J.

Case 2:05-cr-00295-RBS Document 163 Filed 04/12/12 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice (07-013)] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of availability of inventions for licensing. 

# SUMMARY:

The inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing. 

# DATES:

February 22, 2007. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward K. Fein, Patent Counsel, Johnson  Space Center, Mail Code AL, Houston, TX 77058-8452; telephone (281) 483-4871; fax (281)  483-6936. 

NASA Case No. MSC-23659-2: Microencapsulation System and Method; 

NASA Case No. MSC-24201-1: A Description of an Improved Method for Attaching an Inflatable Shell to a Rigid Interface. 

Dated: February 9, 2007. 

Keith T. Sefton, 

Deputy General Counsel, Administration and Management. 

 [FR Doc. E7-2921 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
# C_2018166EN.01000701.xml

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Council of State, France) — Christian Picart v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

(Case C-355/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Direct taxation - Transfer of the place of residence from a Member State to Switzerland - Taxation of unrealised gains on significant shareholdings in a number of companies established in the Member State of origin at the time of such transfer - Scope of the Agreement))

(2018/C 166/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Council of State

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christian Picart

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Where a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not come within the scope ratione personae of the notion of ‘self-employed persons’, within the meaning of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, the terms of that agreement must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a State party to that agreement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, when a natural person transfers his residence from that State to another State party to that agreement, while maintaining his economic activity in the first of those two States, without undertaking every day, or at least once a week, a journey from the place of his economic activity to that of his residence, provides for the immediate taxation of the unrealised capital gains on significant shareholdings held by that person in companies governed by the laws of the first State at the time of the transfer of residence and which allows deferred recovery of the tax due only if suitable guarantees to ensure recovery of the tax are provided, whereas a person who also holds such shareholdings, but who continues to reside in the territory of the first of those States, need pay tax only at the time of transfer of those shareholdings.

---

(1)  OJ C 335, 12.09.2016.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Furniture Brands International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard R. Isaak, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  | /s/ Richard R. IsaakRichard R. Isaak
Title:Controller and Chief Accounting Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)Furniture Brands International, Inc.
February 29, 2008
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6971

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JAY E. LENTZ,

 Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior

District Judge. (1:01-cr-00150-TSE-1; 1:09-cv-00788-TSE)

Submitted: December 15, 2011 Decided: December 19, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jay E. Lentz, Appellant Pro Se. Erik R. Barnett, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Patricia Marie Haynes, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Priya B. Viswanath, Special Assistant 

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jay E. Lentz seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Lentz has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

Lentz’s motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 49982.

#### Protests 112704-K, etc., of Elding Trading Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 21 
 
 
       SUBSIDIARIES OF INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION 
 
 
     The following is a list of the Company's subsidiaries as of  
March 1, 1997, except for unnamed subsidiaries which, considered  
in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a  
significant subsidiary. 
 
                                                 Jurisdiction 
                                                      of 
Name of Subsidiary                               Incorporation 
--------------------------------------------     ------------- 
Damca International Corporation                    Delaware 
     Inversiones MONACA, C.A.                      Venezuela 
          AGROMONACA, C.A.                         Venezuela 
          Molinos Nacionales, C.A. (MONACA)        Venezuela 
     Robin Hood Multifoods Inc.                    Ontario 
          Multifoods Inc.                          Ontario 
          Gourmet Baker Inc.                       Ontario 
          980964 Ontario Limited                   Ontario 
Fantasia Confections, Inc.                         California 
MINETCO - Minnesota International  
Export Trading Company, Inc.                       Minnesota 
Multifoods Bakery Distributors, Inc.               Delaware 
Multifoods Bakery International, Inc.              Delaware 
Multifoods Specialty Distribution, Inc.            Delaware 
VSA, Inc.                                          Colorado
# sf133_schp--OUTPUT

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2021-12	&"Arial,Bold"&9V SF 133/Sch P - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout February 10, 2021
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

INNOTECH, INC.

Computation of Net Loss and Pro Forma Net Loss
 Per Common Share

Years Ended December 31, 1996 and 1995

(Unaudited)

================================================================================

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                1996           1995
                                            -------------  -------------
<S>                                         <C>            <C>

Weighted average shares of common
 stock outstanding                             7,492,608        704,285
Common stock issued during 1995,
 deemed to be outstanding for entire
 period (1)                                          --          68,706
Convertible, redeemable preferred
 stock (2)(3)                                        --       3,954,370
Common stock warrants (1)(4)                         --         999,340
Common stock options (1)(4)                          --         497,231
                                            ------------   ------------

Weighted average number of common
 shares outstanding (pro forma for 1995)       7,492,608      6,223,932
                                            ============   ============

Net loss                                    $(10,822,452)  $(10,592,772)
                                            ============   ============

Net loss per common share (pro forma
 for 1995)                                  $      (1.44)        $(1.70)
                                            ============   ============
</TABLE>


(1) For the year ended December 31, 1995, common stock, common stock warrants
    and common stock options issued within a one-year period prior to the
    initial filing of the registration statement related to the initial public
    offering have been treated as outstanding for the entire period.  In the
    case of common stock warrants and common stock options, the treasury stock
    approach has been utilized.  Common stock warrants and common stock options
    issued prior to one year before the initial filing date have not been
    considered as their effect would be anti-dilutive.

(2) For the year ended December 31, 1995, convertible, redeemable preferred
    stock issued within a one-year period prior to the initial filing of the
    registration statement related to the initial public offering has been
    treated as outstanding for the entire period.  In addition, convertible,
    redeemable preferred stock issued prior to one year before the initial
    filing date was considered converted into common stock on the respective
    original dates of issuance.

(3) For the year ended December 31, 1996, convertible, redeemable preferred
    stock was considered converted into common stock on the respective original
    dates of issuance.

(4) For the year ended December 31, 1996, common stock warrants and common stock
    options have not been considered as their effect would be anti-dilutive.
LAW OFFICES OF

PORTER, SCOTT,

WEIBERG & DELEHANT

A PROFE S S IONA L C ORPORA T IO N

350 UN IVER S IT Y AVE ., SUIT E 200

P .O . BO X 255428

SACRAMENTO, CA 95865

(916) 929-1481

www.pswdlaw.com

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

Order Regarding Stipulation to 

Continue the Hearing on Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment

00399100.WPD

PORTER, SCOTT, WEIBERG & DELEHANT

A Professional Corporation

Nancy J. Sheehan, SBN 1098419

Brendan J. Begley, SBN 202563

350 University Avenue, Suite 200

Sacramento, California 95825

(916) 929-1481

(916) 927-3706 (facsimile)

Attorney for Defendants: REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LARRY

VANDERHOEF (erroneously sued as LAWRENCE VANDERHOEF), GREG

WARZECKA, PAM GILL-FISHER, ROBERT FRANKS AND LAWRENCE SWANSON

EQUITY LEGAL

Kristen Galles, SBN 148740

10 Rosecrest Avenue

Alexandria, Va 22301

(703) 683-4491

(703) 683-4636 (facsimile)

Attorney for Plaintiffs: MICHAEL D. BURCH AND THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE 

OF MICHAEL D. BURCH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In Re: MICHAEL D. BURCH & SYLVIA

BURCH,

Debtors.

__________________________________/

MICHAEL D. BURCH AND THE

BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF MICHAEL

D. BURCH,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT

DAVIS; et al., 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. S. 04-38 WBS/GGH

ORDER REGARDING STIPULATION TO

CONTINUE THE DEADLINE FOR THE

PARTIES TO STIPULATE OR MOVE TO

SCHEDULE NEW DATES FOR THE

FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND

THE TRIAL

Good cause having been shown, the Court hereby grants the parties’ Stipulation to

Continue the Deadline for the Parties to Stipulate or Move to Schedule New Dates for the

Final Pretrial Conference and the Trial. The parties are instructed to file a Stipulation to

Case 2:04-cv-00038-WBS-GGH Document 154 Filed 11/21/05 Page 1 of 2
LAW OFFICES OF

PORTER, SCOTT,

WEIBERG & DELEHANT

A PROFE S S IONA L C ORPORA T IO N

350 UN IVER S IT Y AVE ., SUIT E 200

P .O . BO X 255428

SACRAMENTO, CA 95865

(916) 929-1481

www.pswdlaw.com

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

Order Regarding Stipulation to 

Continue the Hearing on Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment

00399100.WPD

Modify Other Dates Established by the Pretrial Scheduling Order, or to move to modify such

dates, no later than November 30, 2005.

Dated: November 18, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-00038-WBS-GGH Document 154 Filed 11/21/05 Page 2 of 2